tony ingram wrote:I've seen it, too. People saying they'll buy the books in the hope that there'll then be more of them, just to annoy Moore because he's a "bitter, cranky old man". Aside from the fact that Moore is neither bitter nor old, it's kind of like kids trying to annoy the old guy on the street who dislikes them coming onto his lawn, just to be malicious for the fun of it.

that's pretty sad. i honestly pity those people, then, to be so...whatever it is that makes them that way. i can't really understand behaving out of spite for "normal" reasons -- things that affect people's real lives. but to behave in such a way over a writer not doing what they wish is just, well, pathetic. there's really no other word for it.

I'm not sure it even has anything much to do with him not doing what they want; a certain section of fandom appears to simply resent Moore for being considered influential by other people. Mostly, it has to be said, younger, newer readers who've probably never read any of his stuff and who consider any writer who hasn't risen to the top of the heap within the last ten years or so to be at best uncool and at worst completely irrelevant. These tend to be the same people who get really resentful if anyone dares to talk about a title or a creator they personally aren't familiar with.

i've never understood that mindset. i always love hearing about new writers, artists or titles. the possibility of discovering something i've not heard of that can blow my mind, like the incal, is one of the great things about comics. (or, heck, any artistic medium.) i can't see why anyone would be against such a thing.

Because they don't like being reminded that there are things they don't know, I guess. There is/was one individual on the DC boards who seemed to take it as a personal insult if you dared to mention any non DC book because he didn't read them, and another who hated being corrected on any fallacious statement he made. Both of them seemed to be teenagers, though...

tony ingram wrote:This is why I don't understand people who so readily self-identify as "DC fans" or "Marvel fans" and seem to believe that being one excludes the possibility of also being the other. I'm a fan of characters, creators and stories, not of publishing companies. After all, since when do companies appreciate loyalty?

Only as long as you spend. I am probably more a DC person than a Marvel. I have read both since I was a kid, but DC seems more like "home" to me. But, I'll read anything, from any company. I follow certain creators no matter what (well, except now, with my personal ban on DC) and I read anything that looks good. Then again, for the last 5 to 10 years, Marvel has seemed so wrapped up in event-driven stories that I can't drill a way in. Oh, well.

tony ingram wrote:a certain section of fandom appears to simply resent Moore for being considered influential by other people. Mostly, it has to be said, younger, newer readers who've probably never read any of his stuff and who consider any writer who hasn't risen to the top of the heap within the last ten years or so to be at best uncool and at worst completely irrelevant. These tend to be the same people who get really resentful if anyone dares to talk about a title or a creator they personally aren't familiar with.

Yeah, there is that. If it isn't in my radar, it must suck. Lucky for me I've always tried to take in a larger scope of historical work, whatever my interests. I have always loved GA comics, Swing music, and things from the 30s and 40s. Way out of my age range, but that's good for me. As to his being influential, I think that IS part of the issue. As I said, there's a segment of comics fandom that really seems to want it to be only superheroes, and only have a small readership, so that they always get what they want. And his work came at a time of possibility for American comics (which he helped create) and that is bad. Comics almost moved largely past superheroes, and that can't be allowed. Sad.

The thing is, comics had always been about more than just superheroes, to an extent right up until the eighties. Even in the Golden Age, superheroes were sharing shelf space with a lot of other stuff, mainly humour titles, and then there were the Western books, the horror books, and after the war, the romance books and the inevitable war books. All of which were still around until the late 70's/early 80's, to some degree, although the Silver Age had brought a major revival of the superheroes. Sgt Rock, Jonah Hex, marvel's Sgt Fury, the Harvey Comics line with Casper and the rest, they were all still around. The US comics industry didn't become almost totally dominated by superheroes until the mid eighties. But the current readership don't realize that either, because they have no historical perspective.

Last edited by tony ingram on Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

tony ingram wrote:The thing is, comics had always been about more than just superheroes, to an extent right up until the eighties

Not disagreeing. But, besides having no historical perspective, they don't want one. They want what they want, and that's ALL that should exist. I've interacted with plenty of people who not only want what they want, they do NOT want anything else. If it isn't what they want, it shouldn't exist. The first time I saw that I thought it was a joke, but I've seen it many times over the years. I just don't get it.

I won't be buying it because it doesn't look very interesting to me. Watchmen is a book that completely fulfills my limited interest in this particular set of characters when I'm done with it. I've gotten to know each of them, what makes them tick, and anything on top of it is just redundant. I suppose there are completionists who would read a book about Bruce Wayne at the age of fifteen going through life in prep school, but there are certain gaps I'd prefer to fill in with my own imagination.

martinsteinrip wrote:Watchmen is a book that completely fulfills my limited interest in this particular set of characters when I'm done with it..

That's one of the main issues. It's a complete story, and making prequels just dilutes the story's place and completeness. It gave us the info we needed about the characters, and it told the story. That ought to be enough.

tony ingram wrote:Moore himself says he thinks the characters are basically too generic to work well in solo books as that's not what they were designed for. I think I'd tend to agree.

Yes, that's also very true. They were meant to represent superheroes in general so that the story resonated with what we all knew about superhero stories. I just don't get why there needs to be more. I can see why DC is doing it, it's a near-guarantee of big money (backlash aside), but I don't see why fans want it. I loved the story, and I don't want more.

tony ingram wrote:Moore himself says he thinks the characters are basically too generic to work well in solo books as that's not what they were designed for. I think I'd tend to agree.

Yes, that's also very true. They were meant to represent superheroes in general so that the story resonated with what we all knew about superhero stories. I just don't get why there needs to be more. I can see why DC is doing it, it's a near-guarantee of big money (backlash aside), but I don't see why fans want it. I loved the story, and I don't want more.

Because they're gullible? It's purely an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the original story, that should be obvious, and yet even people who seem to see that are still saying they'll buy all 35 books!

tony ingram wrote:]Because they're gullible? It's purely an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the original story, that should be obvious, and yet even people who seem to see that are still saying they'll buy all 35 books!

I'm not sure it's that. In general, people seem to love sequels, even to things that were obviously closed stories. I mean, I like continuing stories (I doubt I'd read comics if I didn't) but when something is done, especially when it's done well, just leave it alone. That's my take.

I don't know that I'd count Star Trek AS a prequel. I mean, it IS in one way, but it was meant to be a reboot. Certainly I didn't think it needed one, but I've been a fan since I was very small, so I'm not the target audience. For them, this isn't a prequel so much as a jumping on point. Plus, I enjoyed it. Not that that makes it ok, I'm sure people DO enjoy prequels.

tony ingram wrote:Actually, I was thinking more of the abysmal Enterprise.

Ah, that makes more sense. But, I've only watched bits and pieces of it. I have enjoyed it, but I also have a high tolerance for "junk fiction", so it would have to be pretty bad before it would be an issue for me.

i'm far more excited for what image has in the pipeline from grant morrison, brian wood and frank quitely later in the year than i am for these books. i can't really see anything being said that's going to make me want to pick up these books.

Had a long chat with the manager of my local comic shop yesterday, and his feeling is that the prequels are not going to do half as well as DC expects. He intends to order low because so far he has very few pre-orders and is seeing a lot of negative comment from regular customers.

tony ingram wrote:Had a long chat with the manager of my local comic shop yesterday, and his feeling is that the prequels are not going to do half as well as DC expects. He intends to order low because so far he has very few pre-orders and is seeing a lot of negative comment from regular customers.

I really get along with my LCS owner, but this is the biggest disagreement I've had with him. I think he expects it to sell really well, and he's said he hasn't heard much negative. We had a LONG discussion about it when I told him no more DC. I don't know, it may sell well, which will mean even more of it. I won't be buying it. Nothing negative about him, I just won't support this.

As I''ve just mentioned on the Ea rth 2 thread, Chris Roberson has been fired by DC after publicly stating that he was no longer willing to work for them after completion of his current story arc in Fairest due to his disagreement with how they've handled the Watchmen situation. DC have apparently paid him for the work he completed, but will not be publishing it. Nice to see that there are still people like Chris who put principle before money.

tony ingram wrote:As I''ve just mentioned on the Ea rth 2 thread, Chris Roberson has been fired by DC after publicly stating that he was no longer willing to work for them after completion of his current story arc in Fairest due to his disagreement with how they've handled the Watchmen situation. DC have apparently paid him for the work he completed, but will not be publishing it. Nice to see that there are still people like Chris who put principle before money.

Can you do me a favor, and let us know when you know of work of his coming out? I'd like to support him, and get his work. Thanks.

tony ingram wrote:If I didn't know better, I'd think they were actively trying to be offensive to Moore, now.

How do you know better? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen something like this. It's like a guy who tried to woo back an ex, right up until he really understood that she wasn't going to come back, and that's when he starts to be abusive. It seems a lot like that.

DC as Moore's abusive ex. For some reason, that's a really amusing notion. Maybe there's a support group out there for comics companies who've been dumped by Alan Moore, and they all get together on a Tuesday night to drink coffee and bitch about their experiences with him.

Last edited by tony ingram on Fri May 18, 2012 7:14 pm; edited 1 time in total